Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Asks Judge To Throw Out Java/Google Verdict...Again (siliconvalley.com)
Just when you thought the six-year, $9 billion lawsuit was over, an anonymous reader quotes this report from the Bay Area Newsgroup:
Oracle has asked a judge -- again -- to throw out the verdict that found Google rightfully helped itself to Oracle programming code to create the Android operating system... A judge already rejected a bid in May by Oracle to get the verdict thrown out. But the software and cloud company hasn't given up. On July 6, Oracle filed a motion in San Francisco U.S. District Court again asking the same judge, William Alsup, to toss the verdict.
The company cited case law suggesting use is not legal if the user "exclusively acquires conspicuous financial rewards'' from its use of the copyrighted material. Google, said Oracle, has earned more than $42 billion from Android. "Google's financial rewards are as 'conspicuous' as they come, and unprecedented in the case law," Oracle's filing said. Oracle wants the judge to adhere to the narrower and more traditional applications of fair use, "for example, when it is 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research.'"
The company cited case law suggesting use is not legal if the user "exclusively acquires conspicuous financial rewards'' from its use of the copyrighted material. Google, said Oracle, has earned more than $42 billion from Android. "Google's financial rewards are as 'conspicuous' as they come, and unprecedented in the case law," Oracle's filing said. Oracle wants the judge to adhere to the narrower and more traditional applications of fair use, "for example, when it is 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research.'"
Sure, but you don't get to sue people for accessing the lake before you owned the property. If they built a nice path with the blessing of the previous owner, you may not even have the right to block their future access.
Your argument falls down because public facts aren't copyrightable.
Also copyright has nothing to do with if you give something away and does not require anyone to keep anything a secret. You don't give away a copyright, you give away a copy which was within your right to do as you see fit. It's right there in the title "copyright", you retain the rights to decide how copies are produced.
I took a photo of an oil refinery once. It was a nice big panorama. I published it on my website in full resolution for all to see and enjoy. I was contacted by the refinery who wanted to use the photo for all internal publications. I said sure and handed over the original files. I happily gave those to the employees too. Then they printed off and framed 100 of these at a vendor presentation without asking me. All good I'm fine with that. 3 months later I found it on the website of an EPCM contractor. I sent them a strongly worded letter that they were using copyrighted work in a commercial setting without license or permission from the copyright owner. That got taken down very quickly.
You see copyright owners don't need to give express permission for each use but can always reserve the right to do so. Just because something is out there doesn't mean it's free of copyright.